Posted
by
CmdrTaco
on Thursday September 02, 2010 @10:23AM
from the i'll-do-it-tomorrow dept.

eldavojohn writes "A Michigan judge removed a juror after a Facebook comment and also fined her $250 and required her to write a five-page paper about the constitutional right to a fair trial. The juror was 'very sorry' and the judge chastised her, saying, 'You violated your oath. You had decided she was already guilty without hearing the other side.'"

Technically, the judge HAS tried her. The judge has the authority to convict her of contempt of court. Up here, when a juror does that, they're looking at up to 2 years in jail, which is one reason why you don't see jurors talking about jury deliberations even decades after a trial - what is said in deliberations is forever secret.

Ex-parte communication with the defendant is also a good way to go to jail.

Her “peers” are, logically, people who are just as dumb as she is... and what better way to flush out dumb people than by posting something dumb on facebook and seeing who “likes” it?

Dumb people aren't all that hard to identify. They're usually rather eager to advertise this fact about themselves, though unwittingly.

There's nothing like a good old car(-related) analogy so I'll give a driving analogy as an example. A lot of people don't seem to understand that the long turning lanes on many major roads are there for a purpose. They exist so that a driver doesn't have to start slowing down for the turn until after going into the turning lane, eliminating the need to slow down all of the traffic behind them just to make a turn. Yet a lot of drivers don't understand this and will gladly slow down everyone behind them, needlessly, completely oblivious to how their actions affect others. If you ever see traffic slow to a crawl on a day when there aren't that many cars on the road, it's because of a multitude of people who may be several miles ahead doing inconsiderate things like this.

That's generally the mark of stupid people everywhere. They are capricious, self-serving, and do not act in a deliberate fashion with a full awareness of how their actions affect others. Most of them are not malicious because malice would require intent and an ability to plan one's actions according to that intent, something the stupid are generally unable or unwilling to do. A juror who, if not for this judge, would have conducted a jury trial with an obvious bias without regard for the jeopardy the accused is in would be another iteration of the same pattern.

They exist so that a driver doesn't have to start slowing down for the turn until after going into the turning lane, eliminating the need to slow down all of the traffic behind them just to make a turn.

Most of the lanes I know of like that are shared between both directions of traffic. Not slowing down before moving into them sounds like a good way to end up in a head-on collision at high speed.

If you are in the states you can just say something like "glenn beck is such a leader" and whoever agrees with you... tada

Also, "Al Gore inspired me to carry a gun and some poorly made bombs into the Discovery Channel headquarters where I took hostages in the name of stopping the births of more parasitic human babies. He's my leader." That's always a good test, too. Just listen for the people who say, "Well, you know, he really does have a solid, valid view of things. His protest theatre was just a bit o

What is fucking scary is without FB she would have already convicted this person without hearing any evidence just because of their (insert looks, ethnicity, race, etc) and sadly this is all too common. True Story:

My mother always taught us to do our civic duty, so when she was chosen for jury duty she used her vacation time at the hospital to go. At the end of the trial she came in white as a ghost and said "If you ever get in trouble NEVER have a jury, always ask for a judge!" and when I asked her what spooked her here is what she said. The trial was an arson case, and she thought it was pretty obvious from the get go there wasn't any case there at all. There was no motive, the guy didn't have enough insurance to cover his losses and ended up losing everything. On top of that even the state's arson investigator admitted on the stand they had NO clue as to what had started the fire or where, and couldn't rule out a short or a grease flare up. Yet she had to hang the jury at 11-1 to CONVICT! Why? "Because he is Italian and Italians are in the mob and burn things. Haven't you ever seen "Goodfellas?"

So yes, this man if it wasn't for my mother would have done 15 years because he was Italian and even though he was in mudsuck AR he must be in the Gambino crime family and do arson jobs because of a movie!

And frankly with the absolute shit pay they give juries most with a brain like my mom simply can't afford to walk away from their good paying job to attend, so we literally have juries made up of "12 folks too stupid to get out of jury duty". Sad but true, my friends. Sad but true.

Here in the UK it's the opposite - people I listened to who've sat on a jury have said things along the lines of "if you're guilty take a jury, if you're innocent take a judge" because their experiences have led them to believe that juries are easier to influence and (in general) reluctant to convict.

That's not true, jurors are only required to remain silent during the trial, afterward, they're allowed to talk to council and anybody else they like. In practice former jurors tend to remain silent for the simple reason that it's very easy to say something after the fact which causes huge headaches or can even cause the case to be set aside. At least that's how it is here in WA, USA, not sure about other parts of the world.

Umm, yes she is, as part of the "service" in Jury service; you agree not to talk about the case with anyone else, outside the court or jury room. The possible penalties are made abundantly clear.
Guilty as charged m'lud.

Agree?? When do you have an opportunity to agree to anything in jury service? You are required to show up on such-and-such date at such-and-such time. You may not wear shorts, tank tops, beach shoes or t-shirts, or any clothing with offensive language or logos. Don't do this, and for heaven's sake, don't do that! Jurors lose quite a bit of freedom when they get that notice in the mail.

The issue isn't getting out of jury service, the issue is that once you are a juror you are given no choice but to "agree" to a number of rules. There is no meeting of minds so a juror isn't really agreeing, just complying.

I might add that it is getting harder to avoid jury service, even if various tricks work in some courts. I wish jury service was a voluntary duty, not unlike voting.

How many innocent people will go to prison or even be executed because they aren't liked by the insiders you'd have running the jury system?

It's bad enough for those who oppose or anger the system, but this would make it far worse.

P.S.

What is wrong with this website today? 'It's been 4 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment' - last time I checked 4 is more than 2 (neither post was anonymous). Is this the new math the credit card companies and banks use?

Good idea. Let's have a test to prove you can read and write. And also a poll-tax, so we can know that you're not some destitute moron. Also let's put some questions on that literacy test to make sure you're a protestant and not one of those loony religions, and a quick inspection to make sure you're genetically OK -- ie. white.

The slope is slipperier than a six foot long 2x6 smeared with okra propped up with a couple of bricks on one end.

Indeed. I wish our voting process was to hand each voter a list of offices followed by a blank line. The poll test would be to write in the candidates name. If you can't correctly spell the name of the candidate you wish to vote for, you obviously haven't done enough research to really know what they stand for, and are to uninformed in matters to be choosing who gets to make the laws.

And that's yet another reason you don't want to have anything to do with facebook, twitter, ping or other social networking sites

They can and will ruin your life if they feel like it.

FTFY

While I wholeheartedly agree with your feelings toward social media, Facebook is not culpable here. If this young woman had gone and plastered her silly comment on a billboard, would the billboard be at fault? Jury rules exist for the citizens' protection and should be enforced judiciously. This girl acted stupidly. The medium transmitting that stupidity had nothing to do with the infraction itself.

The judge would have a field day with me. My first instinct when I meet someone is to use some sort of latent psychic ability to peer directly into their soul and evaluate what kind of person they are on a very basic level. Something I learned to do... long before I remember, probably since I was born.

This is something that humans are just hardwired to do. Rapid evaluations of new individuals helps us in evaluating potential threats, and in assessing the credibility and trustworthyness of anyone we meet. It's something that we just cannot avoid doing, it happens very quickly and outside of our awareness. The problem is that these initial perceptions are incredibly difficult to change. One chance at a first impression if you will.

We all do it. Some of us are more aware that we are doing it than other

Everyone knows humans make knee jerk assumptions about people. Everyone should also know that, if you're sitting on a jury, you don't post those knee jerk assumptions on Facebook - it highlights the mockery of the fair trial process, and judges don't like that at all.

Quote: "On the basis of those calculations, Gottman has proven something remarkable. If he analyzes an hour of a husband and wife talking, he can predict with 95% accuracy whether that couple will still be married fifteen years later. If he watches a couple for fifteen minutes, his succe

It's not even about common sense, it's more a problem with discretion. I cannot believe some of the things people tweet or post about on Facebook--things that I would think any self-respecting person would know better than to share with the world. It's like it's a contest to see who has the most embarrassing dirty laundry. Then there are the people who think their every stray thought is worth a Facebook status update. Well, it isn't. Odds are, no one cares.

Most people would be better off if they just kept their mouths shut and their keyboards silent.

It's not even about common sense, it's more a problem with discretion. I cannot believe some of the things people tweet or post about on Facebook--things that I would think any self-respecting person would know better than to share with the world. It's like it's a contest to see who has the most embarrassing dirty laundry. Then there are the people who think their every stray thought is worth a Facebook status update. Well, it isn't. Odds are, no one cares.

Most people would be better off if they just kept their mouths shut and their keyboards silent.

Discretion is not compatible with the narcissism and vanity that drives a person to think that the world needs to know every last detail about their personal lives, as though they were a celebrity who can hardly shop at a grocery store without having it published in the tabloids. That's why the people with discretion are relatively silent compared to the ones you're talking about.

Common sense does not begin to enter the picture until well after vanity is recognized as the empty and useless pursuit that

Contempt of court is one of the few times where the writ of habeas corpus doesn't apply. It has been ruled that the defendant "holds the keys to his own cell".

Unfortunately that implies that you have no standing to challenge a live judicial order. If the judge tells you to do something, you either comply or get locked up until you do. The lack of habeas corpus means that you can't whine to a higher judge and sit tight.

You know, with how pervasive social networking is these days, and how poorly educated a lot of the public seems to be about how the legal system works, I have to say that I am surprised that this has not happened sooner. It was bound to happen eventually. Personally, i think that the punishment should be a little steeper than 250$ and an essay. This is the sort of behavior that needs to be nipped in the bud, set a proper example, and really show that this sort of thing will not be tolerated.

You know, with how pervasive social networking is these days, and how poorly educated a lot of the public seems to be about how the legal system works, I have to say that I am surprised that this has not happened sooner. It was bound to happen eventually. Personally, i think that the punishment should be a little steeper than 250$ and an essay. This is the sort of behavior that needs to be nipped in the bud, set a proper example, and really show that this sort of thing will not be tolerated.

how poorly educated a lot of the public seems to be about how the legal system works

"There are some things you're not supposed to do, but nothing happens if you don't get caught."

You know, with how pervasive social networking is these days, and how poorly educated a lot of the public seems to be about how the legal system works, I have to say that I am surprised that this has not happened sooner. It was bound to happen eventually. Personally, i think that the punishment should be a little steeper than 250$ and an essay. This is the sort of behavior that needs to be nipped in the bud, set a proper example, and really show that this sort of thing will not be tolerated.

Bad: A juror talking about a trial outside of the trial.

Really, insanely, horribly, justice pervertingly bad: Being selected as a member for a jury and deciding a person's fate before they or their representation has a chance to present their side of the case.

The bad part was "bound to happen" but not even giving the accused a chance to explain their side of the story? That should never be "bound to happen." And that fundamental issue with how a 'fair trial' should happen in the United States, I

You know, with how pervasive social networking is these days, and how poorly educated a lot of the public seems to be about how the legal system works

Unless Michigan is very different from Washington, the state of education about the legal process is irrelevant - because jurors and prospective jurors are briefed (multiple times) about what is and isn't appropriate behavior during the selection process and prior to trial.

It's really just an older definition of the term. "Peer" is mostly used the same way in Britain as it's used here, and the it can be used here to describe "peers" of other countries, perfectly accurately. Since blooded nobility means very little these days, even in countries that continue to have it, the old use of the term has fallen away except in historical records and fantasy novels.

To GP: The original use of the term "peer" had little to do with ability, and everything to do with birth. When the or

When I was on a federal jury a few years ago. The trial was held 15 miles from the "crime scene" and as much as 45 or more from the juror's homes. It took some jurors over 2.5 hours to drive home. (I live in a city exceedingly bad for commuting.)

However, none of us resented the defendant for this. It was remarkable that everyone felt it was their civic duty.

My only complaint about the entire process is that the jury (pretty much the entire jury) felt that the charges were overly aggressive. A very youn

The way the instructions to the jury were written, there was no choice in the outcome.... The judge should have been required to explain to the jury about jury nullification.

How does someone even reach the age where they can be selected for jury duty without understanding the basic principle that the jurors can decide pretty much whatever they please behind those closed doors? I mean, who even needs to be told about "jury nullification"?

How does someone even reach the age where they can be selected for jury duty without understanding the basic principle that the jurors can decide pretty much whatever they please behind those closed doors? I mean, who even needs to be told about "jury nullification"?

I imagine this has to do with a combination of factors, namely a campaign on the part of the legal system to suppress knowledge about jury nullification and instruct jurors that they may not use it. The lack of ethics and/or civics classes in modern American secondary education probably has a whole lot to do with it as well, I'm sure.

Jury nullification is an extremely closely guarded "secret." DAs don't talk about it. Judges don't talk about it. Mentioning it during a juror interview is a good way to have yourself immediately ejected from the building. They don't teach it in civics class (and if they did, the teacher would be "disappeared" from teaching the class). The entire justice system does not want you to know about nullification and they will go to great lengths to make sure you don't know about it. If you mention it in a room full of other potential jurors, everybody will be sent home.

So don't try to tell somebody he's an idiot because he doesn't know about it.

And I was on a jury for a murder trial where we debated for many hours before finding the person not guilty (the fucker was guilty but the state did not prove their case). The point being that your experience is interesting but not universal.

Yes people make up their mind beofre things start.. But that is why yu are supposed to deliberate, supposed to discuss. To make sure

a) everyone understands the evidenceb) everyone understands what the evidence MEANSc) everyone can explain their reasoning.

Sure you can take the evidence and make it fit your preconceived notions. But if yu are on the jury with other people who have a brain they will see through that and make you explain yourself.

I'm confused, you say "sure you can take the evidence and make it fit your preconceived notions", but you also say "the fucker was guilty but the state did not prove their case". So, aren't you somehow applying your notions instead of the evidence? How are you so sure the guy was guilty?

The juror was 'very sorry' and the judge chastised her saying, 'You violated your oath. You had decided she was already guilty without hearing the other side.'"

Facebook had nothing to do with it, the problem is people aren't objective. The injustice would have happened no matter if she didn't post anything about it.

That's a bit high and mighty, isn't it? I'm fairly certain there's a solid chance that any person / every person could decide to convict based on hearing only half of the story. You might elect to not tell anyone you had done so, but depending on the case, this may well be the correct choice. Labeling it as in injustice assumes that the decision was incorrect. We just don't know that yet, do we?

Imagine the prosecution lays out a case with video, DNA, eyewitness evidence, and a confession. Imagine further that the DA wanted to plea them out, but the defendant would rather be on TV, and insisted on a trial. You would, in this hypothetical case, come away from the first day with the conclusion that the defense would need a miracle to win the case. And, assuming the accused was some sort of scumbag, you'd probably be rooting for them to fail to find one.

Anyway, it seems bizarre that you'd bash her for jumping to conclusions by jumping to conclusions.

I think we're coming at this from different angles. Of course you're going to be forming and reforming opinions throughout the trial. It's how you analyze the data being presented to you. No human is going to be able to sit as a passive sponge, absorbing information until they have all of it and are finally ready to analyze it as a cohesive whole. It's not in our natures.

There's a difference, though, between sitting and thinking "Hmm, that piece of evidence doesn't look good for the defendant" or even "

I find it disturbing that anyone in the courtroom (or associated with the process) even knows the names of the jurors.
When I was a juror we were assigned numbers before we even arrived at the court for selection. AFAIK the judge didn't even know our names.
During selection, we were asked if we knew the accused, the victim, any of the lawyers, the police officers involved, or any of the witnesses (and their names were listed) or if we had any dealings with anyone in the small town that they had all come from. Any of those would make you not able to sit on the jury for this case.
We were also strongly warned not to speak about the details of the trial with anyone other than the other jurors. Ever.

Of course, that''s the Canadian court system. In other countries, YMMV.

Here is the real problem, Lawyers pick out those they don't think are good "fits" - aka those with more than half a god damned brain. They want dumb jurors and it is what we get. I wouldn't want to be judged by random people, our society is too stupid.

Having gone for jury duty in two states, I can tell you that what you say is not always the case.

I served on a jury in Kentucky in 1999 or so, and the other jurors struck me as intelligent, level-headed people. We were there to do our civic duty and we did it well, I think. We returned our verdict based on the evidence presented at trial. That is what was asked of us and that *is* what we did.

Fast forward about 8 to 10 years and I was called to jury duty in Massachusetts. I was saddened by the number of people deliberately lying in an effort to get out of jury duty. What I saw were a bunch of selfish, self-centered consumers, rather than citizens who were willing to do their civic duty to at least attempt to preserve the notion of a fair trial in this country.

My number was called and I sat in the box. The attorneys have the right to strike jurors for any reason. I was called to the bench to answer questions about my previous jury service and about a past experience as a witness in a trial. I answered those questions as truthfully as I could given the amount of time that had elapsed since either had occurred. One of the attorneys decided to strike me based on my answers to those questions, or perhaps for some other reason. (Ironically, I "got out of" jury duty faster than the people who were lying about knowing something about the case, or being biased, etc.)

It sickens me when I hear people say things like "too dumb to get out of jury duty." That attitude has contributed to the decline of the criminal justice system in the USA. It's not the only factor, of course, but it is part of the problem when people do not want to participate in something that is vital to freedom in our country.

Recently, I was not selected in a jury trial but I wished I would have been. Too many of the potentials had been "educated" by Law & Order, or other courtroom dramas.

Here is the premise: A man stabs his wife 14 times using 2 knives and a fork. I dont say allegedly because he did do it, he admitted it, he called the police when it was over to tell them she was dead. She was not dead, but went to the hospital where she later died.

The case was between the prosecution (claiming 1st degree, premeditated

The one criminal jury I was on had a pretty good cross-section in terms of education and experience. As I recall, only one potential jurors was removed: one who had previously served on a jury that failed to reach a verdict.

They want dumb jurors and it is what we get.

Each side in a jury trial wants jurors that are as well disposed as possible to their side, and has an incentive to remove jurors that they feel will be unreceptive to the arguments that they plan to use. Additionally, either side (and often bo

That a juror has already formed his opinion before the end of the trial is a common problem in all jury based law systems. A system with (multiple) full-time judges avoid some of those errors, but opens another can of worms.

To be honest that's probably the thing about my one time on jury duty that I'm the most proud of. Finishing deliberations, the results were nothing like what I would've expected going into it. Perhaps the fact that it was a civil trial rather than criminal and that we just had to go with the preponderance of evidence and didn't need unanimous consent to reach an agreement.

I know you're joking, but I'd like to point out that there's a rather natural reason why the system is slanted against the defendant:

It's expensive and overloaded.

As a prosecutor you wouldn't want to waste resources on a fishing expedition. You'll need a case, and whether fabricated out of whole cloth or genuine, it really ought to be a good enough case to convince at least SOME of the jurors by the time you are finished presenting it. If not, then it is too soon to go to trial, isn't it?

$250 fine. First class, well done. You hit back at someone doing you a favour when they do a bad job. *clap clap clap*.

What a self-important moron this judge is.

A favor? They call it "jury duty" for a reason. Under the 6th Amendment, every US Citizen has the right to a speedy public trial by an impartial jury and it is the duty of all citizens to help provide for this right. Obviously the devil is in the details when it comes to finding a truly impartial jury, but it's a pretty obvious (and serious!) breach of decorum and a complete abandonment of duty to post "gonna be fun to tell the defendant they're GUILTY" on Facebook for crying out loud. If she really didn't want to be there, all she had to do was make up an extreme point of view on something and she would have been dismissed. She was letting down all parties involved in the case and all of her fellow citizens by doing this. I bet if she ever got in trouble with the law, she'd want a juror absent of anyone make snide comments about her on Facebook.

Ummm, no. He slapped someone with a fine for violating very specific instructions (not to mention the law), and for causing problems and needless expense and delay for the defendant, attorneys, and other jurors.

It's not like Jons just offered to serve on a jury out of the goodness of her heart, had no instructions about how she had to do her job and got fined for an innocent mistake. She was called upon to do her civic duty - as any citizen can be. She received specific instructions about the hows and whys of serving on a jury. Then she apparently decided to ignore the instructions, and that her ability to post whatever crap wandered through her head on Facebook was more important than the right of the defendant to a fair trial.

Bra-vo. Good show. Kudos to the judge for not only giving her a proportionate fine, but for also giving her some more meaningful work to do so she understands WHY what she did was bone-headed and wrong.